The Structure of The Clause

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/5/2016, SPi
CHAPTER 31
The structure of the clause

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY
31.1 Overview of clause subject Radu situated to its left in the dedicated preverbal
subject position:1
The positions indicated in the linear template in (1) exem-
(3) [Infl Subject Aux [VP Adverb Verb Object(s)
plified from Calabrian reflect the standard idea that the
Radu a tot câştigat bani
clause begins with the verb phrase (VP), in which the lexical
Adjunct(s)]]
verb (fumava) is first combined with its complements
la pocher. (Ro.)
(i sigarette) and then with any optional adjunct elements
‘Radu has continuously won money at poker.’
(a sira). This complex constituent is, in turn, combined
with any pre-VP-adverbs (mancu) under whose scope it
The confines of the sentential core can therefore be iden-
falls and, ultimately with the subject (Cicciu).
tified with the preverbal subject position situated at the left
edge of the Infl domain and the complement or adjunct
(1) [VP Subject Adverb Verb Object(s) Adjunct(s)]
position situated at the right edge of VP (4a). To this, we
Cicciu mancu fumava i sigarette a sira. (Cal.)
can add a further layer of structure, the so-called higher left
Cicciu not.even smoked the cigarettes the evening
periphery (LP) of the clause which includes the rich syntactic
‘Cicciu didn’t even smoke cigarettes in the evening.’
space immediately to the left of the of the sentential core
(4b) which hosts, among other things, complementizers (viz.
We thus see that the traditional semantic notions of sub-
subordinators) and topicalized and focused elements, as
ject (AGENT) and object (UNDERGOER) are unambiguously mapped
illustrated in the expanded version of (3) in (5):
onto two distinct positions to the left and right of the tran-
sitive verb, respectively. With intransitives, by contrast, the
(4) a. [Core [Infl S (Aux) [VP (S) V O (X)]]]
grammatical subject can be aligned with either of these
b. [LP Comp Top/Foc [Core [Infl S (Aux) [VP (S) V O (X)]]]]
positions in accordance with its semantic interpretation,
allowing us to distinguish between unergative and unaccusa-
(5) [LP Comp [Infl Subject Aux [VP Adverb
tive intransitive subjects (see §50.2): the former have an
Cred că Radu a tot
agentive interpretation and are to all intents and purposes
‘I.believe that Radu has continuously
identical to transitive subjects, bar the presence of an object,
Verb Object(s) Adjunct(s)]]]
occurring in preverbal position (2a), whereas the latter are
câştigat bani la pocher. (Ro.)
interpreted as UNDERGOERS and consequently pattern with
won money at poker.’
objects typically occurring in the postverbal position (2b).
(2) a. Cicciu mancu fumava. (Cal.) 31.2 Sentential core

Cicciu not.even smoked
‘Cicciu didn’t even smoke.’ 31.2.1 Lower left periphery
b. Supru fuocu fumava na cassarola. (Cal.)
On a par with the fine structure of the higher left periphery
on.the fire smoked a pot
of the clause discussed in detail below in §31.3 (see also §34),
‘On the stove a pot was steaming away.’
The sentential core, however, extends beyond the lexical

VP to include an Infl(ectional) domain, the locus of verbal 1
Other elements hosted within the Infl domain discussed elsewhere in
inflection hosting such elements as the perfective auxiliary the volume are subject clitics (Ch. 47), object clitics (Ch. 48), and negation
a in (3) which licenses through subject-verb agreement the (Ch. 51).
The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds)
556 This chapter © Silvio Cruschina and Adam Ledgeway 2016. Published 2016 by Oxford University Press.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE
the VP also makes available an extended lower left periph- b. Que ’m harta, lo ton ahar. (Gsc.)
ery composed of a series of disourse-related positions avail- that =me satisfies the your matter
able to host topicalized and focused constituents (6a; cf. ‘I’m satisfied with this matter of yours.’
Belletti 2001; 2004b; 2005; Poletto 2006a; 2007; 2010:71f.,
73f.; 2014). Exemplifying from old Tuscan, we can therefore
As indicated by the question-answer pairs in (7), the
identify within the clausal structure two left peripheries
postverbal lexical subject en Pere variously receives an infor-
(LP), a higher one (LP1) related to the clausal superordinate
mationally focused (7a) and a topicalized (7b) reading, con-
functional structure and a lower one (LP2) related to the
veying, new and old information, respectively. Identical
subordinate VP domain, whose left edges offer competing
considerations hold for the contrastively focused and top-
topic and focus positions, as illustrated by the higher and
icalized readings of the Gascon postverbal subjects in (8a,b).
lower positions of the focused quantifier tutto ‘everything’
Significantly, in both (7b) and (8b) the topicalized interpret-
in the near minimal pair (6b,c):2
ations are further marked at the prosodic level by an inton-
ational pause (orthographically by a comma) between the
(6) a. [LP1 _____ [Infl Aux [LP2 _____ [VP V ]]]]
participle and the postverbal subject.
b. [LP1 quando TUTTO [INFL ebbe [LP2 _____ [VP dato tutto]]]] In view of the marked status of postverbal subjects which
when all he.had given receive a focused or topicalized reading, it is natural to inter-
(OTsc., Nov.) pret this pragmatic effect as a direct reflex of a particular
structural configuration which licenses the observed inter-
c. [LP1 ch’ _____ [Infl avea [LP2TUTTO [VPdonato tutto]]]]
pretations. In the particular cases at hand, we take the appar-
that he.had all given
ently low position of the subject to indicate that it has moved
(OTsc., Nov.)
to a focus or topic position in the lower left periphery.4
‘[ . . . ] when/that he had given everything’
(9) a. [Ha sopat/vingut [LP2 [Top/Foc en Pere/en Pere]
By assuming within the sentential domain two left per-
[VP en Pere sopat/vingut]]]
ipheries at the level of the clause and the VP, we can explain
a certain degree of optionality and variation in the syntactic b. [ . . . domandat/harta [LP2 [Top/Foc lo ton ahar/JO]
distribution of topicalized and focused constituents in old [VP lo ton ahar/jo domandat/harta]]]
and modern Romance and across its many diatopic var-
ieties. Consider, for instance, the examples of postverbal Evidence that the postverbal subject occupies a low pos-
subjects in (7, 8).3 ition in the clausal structure is provided by examples like
(10), where the subject clearly precedes the verbal (prepos-
(7) a. Qui ha sopat / vingut? — Ha sopat / itional) complement which has remained in situ within the
who has dined come has dined VP. At the same time, the obligatory position of the lexical
vingut en Pere. (Cat.) subject to the right of adverbs like bene ‘well’, which mark
come the Pere the left margin of the VP (cf. §31.2.2.1), demonstrates that
‘Who dined/came? — Pere dined/came.’ the subject sits immediately above the VP in the lower left
b. Què ha fet en Pere? — Ha periphery.
what has done the Pere has
sopat / vingut, en Pere. (Cat.) (10) Spiegherà (**Maria/**MARIA) bene(,) Maria/MARIA
spoken come the Pere will.explain Maria well Maria
‘What did Pere do? — Pere, he dined/came.’ al direttore.5 (It.)
to.the manager
(8) a. Que l’ac èi domandat JO. (Gsc.) ‘MARIA will/Maria, she will explain (it) correctly to the
that this= I.have asked I manager.’
‘It was me who asked for it.’
If we replace the verb in (10) with a predicate that selects
for a direct object such as conoscere ‘to know’, the structure
2
In what follows we indicate topicalized consituents with underlining,
4
contrastively focalized constituents with small capitals, and all other types The underlying base position of displaced constituents is indicated
of focus (e.g. informational) with bold. with strikethrough.
3 5
See Cardinaletti (1997; 2004), Cecchetto (1999), Villalba (2000), Belletti On the mildly deviant nature of V+S+PP sentences with informationally
(2001; 2004b; 2005a), Ordóñez (2007), González i Planas (2009), López (2009). focused subject, see Belletti (2004b).
557
proves ungrammatical (11). This has been explained by b. (**Chi rispose al telefono?) — CARLO rispose
Belletti (2004b; 2005) as a case-licensing intervention effect: who replied to.the telephone Carlo replied
whereas with a prepositional complement such as (10) the al telefono, non io. (It.)
object is case-licensed locally by the immediately governing to.the telephone not I
preposition (viz. [PP P[+Case] [NP OBJ[+Case]]]), in (11) the licensing ‘(Who answered the phone? —) It was Carlo who
verb is situated just above the postverbal subject from where answered the phone, not me.’
it cannot case-mark its complement because of the interven-
ing subject (viz. . . . V[+Case] [Top/Foc SUBJ [VP [NP OBJ[_Case]]]]. Although many modern Romance varieties appear to
parallel Italian in licensing contrastive focus in the higher
(11) Conosce (**Maria/**MARIA) bene **Maria/MARIA il left periphery, informational focus is not invariably licensed
knows Maria well Maria the in the lower periphery in all varieties, including in medieval
direttore. (It.) Romance (cf. §§31.3.3-4).6
manager Finally, another significant difference, this time between
‘Maria knows the manager well.’ old and modern Romance, concerns the position of constitu-
ents of the VP in participial and infinitival clauses in con-
This explanation, in turn, provides an immediate account junction with perfective auxiliary and restructuring
of why Romanian and Spanish are widely reported (Dobro- predicates, respectively. Whereas in modern Romance all
vie-Sorin 1994; Motapanyane 1989; Zagona 2002:214-16; constituents standardly remain within the non-finite VP, in
Sheehan 2006; Gutiérrez-Bravo 2007; Corr 2012; Pană old Romance such constituents could frequently precede
Dindelegan 2013b:119-25; Vasilescu 2013c; Zafiu 2013b), in the participal and infinitival verb (14a-d), a fact which
contrast to Italian and French, to license VSO orders (cf. Poletto (2006a, 2007, 2010, 2014) has convincingly inter-
§§34.3.1, 62.3), since they also employ the prepositional preted as a case of Verb Second (cf. also Ledgeway
accusative (cf. §56.3.2.4) to mark (typically specific, ani- 2009a:761-5): in the same way that the higher left periphery
mate) direct objects with the prepositions a ‘to, at’ and pe is characterized by a V2 requirement, this same require-
‘on’, respectively (12c,d). It follows that in VSO sequences ment is claimed to percolate down to the lower left periph-
the object is always case-licensed in Romanian and Spanish ery which also regularly attracts the non-finite verb and any
by a governing preposition (presumably covert in the case pragmatically salient constituents. It follows that when V2
of non-specific and/or inanimate objects), which is unavail- was lost in the higher periphery, it was correspondingly lost
able in Italian and French (12a,b). in the lower periphery.
(12) a. Maria conosce bene il direttore. (It.) (14) a. avea [LP [Foc TUTTO]
b. Marie connaît bien le directeur. (Fr.) he.had all
c. Maria îl cunoaşte bine pe director. (Ro.) dispeso [VP dispeso tutto]] (OIt., Nov.)
d. María (le) conoce bien a- l director. (Sp.) spent
Maria him= knows well on/to the manager ‘he had squandered everything’
‘Maria knows the manager well.’
b. si’ st [LP [Top a Deu] aturnét [VP aturnét a Deu]]
so is to God turned
Although there is a strong parallelism between the dis-
(OFr., Vie de S. Alexis)
course functions of the lower and higher peripheries, the
‘thus he has turned to God’
lower and higher focus positions are not necessarily inter-
changeable. In standard Italian, for example, the former c. m fas [LP [Foc e chaitiveza]
usually aligns with informational focus (13a), while the me= you.make in captivity
latter licenses a contrastively focused reading (with con- star [VP star e chaitiveza]] (OOcc., Boecis)
comitant marked intonational contour), typically correcting stay.INF
a previous assertion (13b). ‘you keep me in captivity’
(13) a. Chi rispose al telefono? — Rispose Carlo

who replied to.the telephone replied Carlo
al telefono (,**non io). (It.)
6
to.the telephone not I Cf. Vanelli (1986; 1999), Jones (1993:332-5), Benincà (1995; 2006),
Lombardi and Middleton (2004), Cruschina (2006; 2008; 2010a; 2012a),
‘Who answered the phone? — Carlo answered the Bentley (2007; 2008a:89-91), Poletto (2007; 2010; 2014), Mensching and
phone.’ Remberger (2010a,b), Zanini and Damonte (2010).
558
d. vulemo [LP [Top de cheste cose] [Foc VUI] (18) Allora non mi amava (**già / più)
we.want of these things you then not me= he.loved already / anymore
incarricare [VP incarricare vui de cheste mica (**più) già più. (It.)
entrust.INF not anymore already anymore
cose]] (ONap., Lettera del re Luigi d’Angiò‑Taranto e di ‘He already stopped loving me by then.’
Giovanni I)
‘we want to entrust you with these matters’ Facts like these suggest that different adverb classes are
distributed in a strictly ordered sequence, in turn mir-
rored by a rigidly fixed sequence of functional predicates
31.2.2 Inflectional domain (auxiliaries). This transparent semantic relationship
between the fixed order of adverbs on the one hand and
functional predicates on the other provides evidence that
The Infl(ectional) domain identified in (3) is commonly
each adverb lexicalizes the modifier position of a
interpreted as a general label for the rich inflectional area
semantically-associated functional category. The result is
of the sentential core made up of a series of auxiliary/
a highly articulated clause structure, considerably richer
functional verb positions dedicated to marking various tem-
in functional projections than has been traditionally
poral, aspectual, modal, and voice distinctions ranging over
assumed.
the VP, which can also be identified by the semantically
corresponding adverbial modifiers they license (Cinque
1999). Consider, for example, the following near- 31.2.2.1 Adverb classes and positions
synonymous pairs where the VP is variously embedded
under the predicates continuar/tornar ‘to continue/return’ On the basis of evidence like that just reviewed, we
and the adverbs todavía/ntorna ‘still/again’, both of which assume that different adverbs and their associated func-
can be assumed to lexicalize dedicated functional positions tional projections making up the inflectional core of the
encoding continuative/repetitive aspect, under whose clause can be broadly divided into two ‘spaces’ termed the
scope the verb and its arguments fall: Lower Adverb Space (LAS) and the Higher Adverb Space
(HAS):7
(15) a. Ana continúa [VP tocando el piano]. (Sp.)
Ana continues playing the piano (19) [Core [HAS S Adv . . . [LAS Adv . . . [VP Vlexical O]]]]
b. Ana todavía [VP toca el piano]. (Sp.) As illustrated from French and Portuguese, the HAS (20a)
Ana still plays the piano chiefly comprises modal categories variously spelt out by
‘Ana carries on playing the piano.’ speaker-oriented adverbs marking such categories as evi-
dential and volitional modality, whereas the LAS (20b) prin-
(16) a. Torna a [VP tronar]. (Cat.) cipally includes aspectual functional positions lexicalized by
it.returns to thunder.INF adverbial classes including terminative and perfective
b. Ntorna sta [VP trona]. (Lec.) aspects, with temporal positions variously scattered across
again PROG it.thunders both spaces.
‘It’s started thundering again.’
(20) a. MoodSpeechAct . . . > MoodEvidential . . . > TPast >
This does not exhaust all possibilities, witness the vari- sincèrement apparemment alors
ations on (15a) given in (17) in which the VP is embedded sinceramente aparentemente então
under several functional predicates. sincerely apparently then
MoodIrrealis > MoodVolitional > AspHabitual
(17) Ana ha debido poder intentar continuar peut-être exprès d’habitude (Fr.)
Ana has had.to be.able.INF try.INF continue.INF talvez de propósito usualmente (Pt.)
[VP tocando el piano]. (Sp.) perhaps generally usually
play.INF the piano
‘Ana had to be able to try to carry on playing the piano.’
To these observations, we can add that adverbs occur

cross-linguistically in a rigidly fixed order, witness the rep- 7
For discussion of the full range of evidence, see Cinque (1999; 2002;
resentative ordering restrictions illustrated in (18): 2004b; 2006), Ledgeway (2012a:§4.3; forthcoming d).
559
b. Neg > TAnterior > AspTerminative > AspPerfect > highlights how both orders are equally possible in that
pas déjà plus toujours language, an observation which leads us to hypothesize
não já mais sempre that the unexpected linearization mai + più in (22b) is
not already any more always derived from the regular underlying order più + mai through
AspCompletive > Voice incorporation of mai into the adverb più ( . . . non ha più mai
complètement bien (Fr.) vinto ) . . . non ha [[mai] più] mai vinto; cf. Cinque 1999:9f.).
completamente bem (Pt.)
completely well (23) À partir de ce moment, il n’ a plus
to leave from this moment he not has more
Excluding marked word orders such as topicalization and jamais/ jamais plus gagné. (Fr.)
focalization, this straightforwardly explains the strict never never more won
ordering of adverbs in examples such as (21a,b), and why ‘Since then, he’s never won again.’
higher adverbs precede those generated in the LAS:
At the appropriate level of abstraction, the relevant dif-
(21) a. [HAS Elle débitait apparemment alors [LAS déjà ference between Italian mai and French jamais is that the
she said apparently then already former, but not the latter, must obligatorily incorporate
toujours [VP débitait des bêtises monstres]]]. (Fr.) into più/plus. This same solution can be applied to the
always some stupidities monsters. competing orders in (24a), with the latter derived from
‘She apparently in those days was already always incorporating ancora ‘yet’ into mica ‘not’, a possibility once
coming out with ridiculous nonsense’ again replicated for French (24b).
b. [HAS Eu felizmente [LAS já faço sempre
(24) a. Non ho mica ancora / [[ancora] mica] ancora
I fortunately already I.do always
[VP capito] (It.)
bem [VP faço o back-up dos arquivos]]]. (Pt.)
well the back-up of.the files b. Je n’ ai pas encore / [[encore] pas]
‘I fortunately already always back up my files I not I.have not yet yet not
properly.’ encore [VP compris]. (Fr.)
understood
The individual adverbs given in (20a,b) are to be under- ‘I haven’t yet understood.’
stood as representative of a much wider selection of adverbs
from the same class including, for example, TAnterior: então
‘then’, (não . . . ) ainda ‘(not . . . ) yet’; Voice: manner adverbs
in ‑mente and measure adverbs (e.g. muito ‘much’). In this
31.2.2.2 Verb positions
respect, it is interesting to compare the differential behav- Not only can the Infl domain be lexicalized by distinct
iour of the adverbs ‘always’ and ‘(n)ever’ across Romance auxiliaries (cf. epistemic use of Catalan auxiliary deure
which, despite lexicalizing opposite values of a perfect ‘must’ to express supposition in (25a)) but, in the absence
aspectual position, and hence in complementary distribu- of the latter, may be overtly filled by the raised lexical verb
tion, display differing orders in conjunction with the higher where its finite inflectional features can be licensed, as with
terminative aspectual adverb più ‘any more’: the epistemic use of the future in substandard Catalan
(Badia i Margarit 1962, I:391) to express supposition in (25b).
(22) a. Lui non ha più sempre /**sempre
he not has any more always always (25) a. [Infl Deu [VP tenir raó]]. (Cat.)
più vinto, da allora. (It.) he.must have.INF reason
anymore won from then
b. [Infl Tindrá [VP tindrá raó]]. (coll. Cat.)
‘Since then, he hasn’t always won any more.’
he.will.have reason
b. Lui non ha **più mai / mai ‘He must be right.’
he not has any more never never
più vinto, da allora. (It.) Traditional broad-brush approaches to Romance verb
anymore won from then placement, which take all varieties to pattern uniformly in
‘Since then, he has never won any more.’ exhibiting overt verb raising as in (25b), fail to recognize a
number of significant differences across the different
However, a comparison with the corresponding French Romance varieties. Thus, although it is true that the
structures with plus ‘anymore’ and jamais ‘(n)ever’ in (23) Romance finite lexical verb invariably vacates the VP,
560
witness its position to the left of ‘completely’ situated at the c. [HAS Pot probabil (pot) sigur
right margin of the LAS in (26a-c), it lexicalizes different they.can probably they.can surely
positions within the Infl domain across Romance, as illus- [LAS deja spune asta despre mine]]. (Ro.)
trated by its differential position with respect to distinct already say.INF this about me
adverb classes. For example, in Spanish the finite verb ‘They probably can certainly already say this about
appears to target a rather low position to the right of the me.’
continuative aspectual adverb ‘still’, whereas in Italian it
d. [HAS Puedo afortunadamente (puedo) tal vez
raises slightly higher to the clause-medial position associated
I.can fortunately I.can perhaps
with habitual aspect, hence to the right of irrealis modal
(puedo)[LAS ya descansarme]]. (Sp.)
adverbs such as forse ‘perhaps’, whereas in French it occupies
I.can already rest.INF=me
the highest available position above all adverb classes.
‘I fortunately can perhaps already take a rest.’
(26) MoodIrrealis AspContinuative
(28) a. [HAS Indubitabil preţurile (pot) [LAS adesea
a. Tal vez todavía entiendo
Undoubtedly prices=the can often
b. Forse capisco ancora capisco
pot devia considerabil]]. (Ro.)
c. Je comprends peut-être compr. encore compr.
can deviate.INF considerably
I understand perhaps underst. still
‘Undoubtedly prices may frequently diverge
AspCompletive [VP . . . ]
considerably.’
completamente entiendo(Sp.)
completamente capisco (It.) b. [HAS Tal vez (quiere) [LAS todavía quiere
complètement compr. (Fr.) Perhaps he.wants still he.wants
underst. completely dormir]]. (Sp.)
‘Maybe I still completely understand.’ sleep.INF
‘Perhaps he still wants to sleep.’
In terms of the highly articulated functional structure of
the clause outlined in §31.2.2.1, we can interpret a number
Finite lexical verbs, on the other hand, show a more
of surface differences across Romance — although we limit
varied behaviour. In French they continue to occupy the
our comparison here to Italian, French, Romanian, and
highest position within the HAS (29a; Rowlett 2007:106f.),
Spanish — in terms of the differential position of the verb
whereas in Romanian and Spanish they typically lexicalize
in relation to different adverb classes.8 For instance, finite
the LAS (29c,d).10 Italian, by contrast, represents an inter-
auxiliaries in most Romance varieties typically target a
mediate case (29b) with the finite lexical verb targeting a
variety of distinct head positions within the HAS (27a-d),9
clause-medial position (AspHabitual) at the right margin of
although in Romanian and Spanish they also present the
the HAS (Cinque 1999:31, 110f., 180 n. 80; Ledgeway and
option of occurring in the LAS (28a,b):
Lombardi 2005:87f.):
(27) a. [HAS Ho francamente (ho) forse (ho) stupidamente
(29)
I’ve frankly I’ve perhaps I’ve stupidly
[HAS . . . [V-Medial [LAS . . . [VP V . . . ]]]]
(ho) [LAS bevuto troppo]]. (It.)
a. Elle connaît peut-être **connaît déjà **connaît la recette. (Fr.)
I’ve drunk too.much
b. Lei **conosce forse conosce già ?conosce la ricetta. (It.)
‘I’ve frankly perhaps drunk too much.’
c. Ea **ştie poate ?ştie deja ştie reţeta. (Ro.)
b. [HAS J’ai sincèrement (j’ai) probablement d. Ella **conoce tal vez ?conoce ya conoce la receta. (Sp.)
I’ve sincerely I’ve probably she knows perhaps knows already knows the recipe(=the)
(j’ai) [LAS trop exagéré]]. (Fr.) ‘Perhaps she already knows the recipe.’
I’ve too.much exaggerated
‘To be honest I probably went too far.’ These same assumptions about the fixed positions
of adverbs allow us to plot the differential position of
8
See Lois (1989), Pollock (1989), Belletti (1990:44f.), Kayne (1991), Cinque
(1999:152), Cornilescu (2000b:89-92), Alboiu and Motapanyane (2000:22-4),
10
Tortora (2002; 2010), Zagona (2002:162-4, 168-70), Ledgeway and Lombardi Lois (1989), Cinque (1999:152), Ledgeway and Lombardi (2005:86-9, 102
(2005:103-6), Fedele (2010), Schifano (2011; 2015), Ledgeway (2012:§4.3.2; n. 12), Monachesi (2005:178), D’Alessandro (2010:35f.). According to Cyrino
forthcoming d). (2010b), verb movement in Brazilian Portuguese also appears to target the
9
Cinque (1999:49f.), Ledgeway and Lombardi (2005:87), Monachesi LAS (in Cyrino’s analysis, the lower T2 position above adverbs like bem
(2005:134, 208). ‘well’).
561
non-finite verbs such as the active participle in the follow- d. Mi dispiace [HAS parlargli francamente
ing examples:11 me=it.displeases speak.INF=him frankly
(**parlargli) [VP parlargli così]]. (It.)
(30) [HAS [LAS AspPerfect VoiceManner [VP . . . ]]] speak.INF=him thus
a. j’ai **mangé toujours **mangé bien mangé. (Fr.) ‘I regret frankly speaking to him like that.’
b. ho mangiato sempre mangiato bene **mangiato. (It.)
c. am mâncat mereu **mâncat bine **mâncat. (Ro.)
d. he comido siempre **comido bien **comido. (Sp.) 31.2.2.3 Summary and conclusions
I’ve eaten always eaten well eaten
In light of the discussion above, Table 31.1 captures the
‘I’ve always eaten properly.’
essential surface differences across Romance in a highly
simple way in terms of the possible clausal positions/spaces
In contrast to the finite verb in (29a), the active participle
targeted by different verb forms.
stays very low in the clause within the LAS to the right of
In the literature there is no general consensus regarding
the manner adverb ‘well’ just above the VP (30a), whereas in
the correct interpretation of verb placement in different
Romanian and Spanish the active participle, unlike the
clausal positions (for an overview, see Schifano 2011; 2015),
finite verb in (30c,d), occupies the highest available position
although traditionally there have been many attempts to
in the HAS beyond the perfective aspectual position spelled
relate the extent of displacement to the richness or other-
out by the ‘always’ adverb (30c,d). In Italian, by contrast, the
wise of the inflectional Agr(eement) of the verb (Roberts
position of the active participle displays greater freedom,
1985; Lightfoot and Hornstein 1994; DeGraff 1997;
occurring at least above ‘well’ and possibly above ‘always’ in
Rohrbacher 1997; Vikner 1997), witness Baker’s (1985;
the HAS (30c).
1988b:13) Mirror Principle and Bobaljik’s (2002) Rich Agree-
Similar types of variation are also found in conjunction
ment Hypothesis. Admittedly, this view finds some initial
with the infinitive. On a par with the active participle, the
support in the Romance data where we have observed that
French infinitive remains in a low position within the LAS
auxiliary verbs, presumably the richest inflectional forms of
(31a; Engver 1972; Belletti 2006b; Rowlett 2007:108-10), a
all, may raise to the HAS in all Romance varieties. However,
pattern also replicated in Romanian and Spanish (31b,c;
a brief glimpse of the results in Table 31.1 suffices to invali-
Ledgeway and Lombardi 2005:89-91), whereas Italian infini-
date such an approach, inasmuch as all the Romance var-
tives (31d) occur in the highest available position within the
ieties we have examined are what may be termed
HAS (Belletti 1990:70-76; Cinque 1999:143-6):
inflectionally rich languages, yet they display some quite
marked differences in the range of positions lexicalized by
(31) a. Il faut [LAS le loger bien
finite and non-finite lexical verbs. This conclusion is further
it.is=necessary him= accommodate.INF well
substantiated by the observation that modern French
(loger) [VP loger . . . ]]. (Fr.)
(where much of the apparently rich inflection of the verb
accommodate.INF
is in reality merely orthographic) shows in speech higher
‘He must be given proper accommodation.’
verb movement of finite lexical verbs to the HAS than all
b. promisiunea de a [LAS nu (vorbi) mai vorbi other varieties.
promise=the of to not talk.INF more talk.INF A more viable explanation for the variable placement of
niciodată [VP vorbi cu el]]. (Ro.) Romance verb forms is to be sought in relation to their
never with him differing aspectual, modal, and temporal functions and
‘The promise of never speaking with him again.’ interpretations.12 Compelling evidence for this semantically
driven view of verb placement is to be found in Italian
c. está cansada de [LAS (hacer) siempre
contrasts like (32a,b), where the active interpretation of
she.is tired of do.INF always
the participle correlates with a higher position than that
hacer [VP hacer los mismos papeles]]. (Sp.)
of its passive counterpart (Cinque 1999:102f., 147f.). How-
do.INF the same roles
ever, temporal interpretation is also relevant here: whereas
‘She is tired of always playing the same roles.’
the lower position of the passive participle proves gram-
matical in generic temporal contexts such as (32b), it is
12
See, however, Schifano (2011; 2015) for convincing arguments why
Romance verb movement cannot be considered semantically driven, but
11
Lois (1989:34, 40), Cinque (1999:45-9, 146-48), Abeillé and Godard should be related to the varying degrees of paradigmatic instantiation of
(2003), Monachesi (2005:134-6). mood, tense, and aspect in different Romance varieties.
562
Table 31.1 Typology of Romance verb placement

HAS CLAUSE - MEDIAL POSITION LAS
FR . IT . RO ., SP . FR . IT . RO ., SP . FR . IT . RO ., SP .
VAux + + + – – + – – +
Vlexical + – – – + (+) – (+) +
VActivePtP – + + – + – + + –
VInfinitive – + – – – – + – +
excluded in examples like (32c) where the specific temporal functional predicates marking various aspectual and
reference of the clause licenses and requires a higher pos- modal categories have long been recognized to exhibit a
ition of the passive participle. rule of restructuring. Accordingly, an underlying biclausal
structure may apparently undergo a process of clause union
(32) a. Hanno [LAS sempre accolto bene to yield a surface monoclausal configuration headed by a
they.have always received well complex derived predicate (34).13
(**accolto) [VP il suo spettacolo]]. (It.)
received the his performance (34) [Aux + [VInfinitival]] ) [Aux + VInfinitival]
‘They always received his performance well.’
The increased dependency and integration induced by
b. Il suo spettacolo è stato [LAS sempre
this clausal restructuring and subsequent union produces
the his performance is been always
an extreme case of interlacing (Lehmann 1988b) between
(accolto) bene (accolto) [VP . . . ]]. (It.)
matrix and dependent infinitival clauses, effacing surface
received well received
clausal boundaries and licensing a range of local phenom-
‘His performance was always well received.’
ena (so-called transparency effects) assumed to hold exclu-
c. Ieri il suo spettacolo era stato sively of simplex (monoclausal) structures including: (i)
yesterday the his performance was been clitic climbing (35a); (ii) selection of perfective auxiliary
[LAS accolto bene (**accolto) [VP . . . ]]. (It.) according to the dependent infinitive (35b); (iii) long object
received well received preposing in passive se/si constructions (35c); and (iv) the
‘His performance was received well yesterday.’ impossibility of cleft sentence formation (35d), since the
infinitive forms a constituent with the functional predicate.
Similarly, in many southern Italian dialects (cf. Ledgeway
2009b; Ledgeway and Lombardi 2014; §16.4.3.4) the lexical (35) a. [¿Cuándo s’ habíen de facerse les
verb targets a higher modal position in irrealis contexts when self= had of do.INF the
(33b) than in realis contexts (33a): fiestes?] (Ast.)
feasts
(33) a. (Tice ca) [HAS l’Anna [LAS (u sapìa) ‘When were the celebrations due to take place?’
He.says that the.Anna it= knew.IND
già u sapìa [VP sapìa]]]. (Sal.) b. [Me soi pogut pas dormir]. (Lgd.)
already it=knew me= am been.able not sleep.INF
‘(He says that) Anna already knew.’ ‘I wasn’t able to get to sleep.’
b. Speru cu [HAS u sape [LAS già c. [I commenti non si riescono/**riesce a

I.hope that it= he.knows already the comments not self= succeed.3PL/3SG to
(**u sape) [VP sape]]]. (Sal.) postare i commenti sul blog]. (It.)
it=he.knows post.INF on.the blog
‘I hope that he already knows it.’ ‘The comments cannot be posted on the blog.’
13
31.2.3 Restructuring See e.g. Aissen and Perlmutter (1983), Hernanz and Rigau (1984),
Picallo (1990), Rochette (1990), Kayne (1991), Bok-Bennema and Kampers-
Manhe (1994), Bonneau and Zushi (1994), Martins (1995), Kornfilt (1996),
Roberts (1997), Monachesi (1998), Remberger (2006:191-216; 2008), and for
Following the seminal work of Rizzi (1976a,b; 1978), exhaustive comparative treatments Cinque (2003; 2004b; 2006). Cf. also
Romance infinitival complements following a class of §§61.3.3.2.1.6, 62.1, 63.2.2.
563
d. **[Es quejar con Marcos que understood as disparate syntactic phenomena whose distri-
it.is complain.INF with Marcos that bution operates independently of the bi-/monoclausal dis-
[me quiero quejar con Marcos]]. (Sp.) tinction (for detailed discussion, see Cinque 2006:157-62).
me=I.want Such is the case of clitic climbing (cf. 35a, 36b), which
‘Complain to Marcos is what I want to do.’ notably displays a considerable degree of variation both
within the same language (cf. northern vs central-southern
Revealing in this respect is the distribution of clitic Italian varieties) and across different Romance varieties (cf.
climbing with a verb such as Sardinian torrare ‘to return’ Italian vs modern French; Kayne 1991).
(Jones 1988a:177). When the clitic surfaces on its associated By the same token, the approach assumed here makes
infinitive, as in (36a), torrare is interpreted as a lexical verb some strong predictions of its own that make immediate
of motion yielding the reading ‘I will return to do it’, sense of a number of empirical facts. The most notable of
whereas when it climbs, as in (36b), torrare is necessarily these is the strong prediction that when two or more so-
interpreted as an exponent of iterative aspect yielding the called restructuring predicates co-occur, they will linearize
interpretation ‘I will do it again’. As an aspectual predicate, in strict accordance with the fixed order of functional pro-
torrare patterns identically to other restructuring verbs jections outlined in the simplified maps of the HAS/LAS in
yielding a monoclausal structure, whereas in its lexical use (20a,b). For example, extrapolating the representative
its behaviour is identical to that of other main verbs which sequence of restructuring verbs from the partial map of
necessarily occur in a biclausal construction. functional categories and associated restructuring verbs
sketched in (38), we are led to expect that such predicates
(36) a. [ Torro [a lu fakere]] (Srd.) can only occur in the indicated order, as is indeed borne out
b. [Lu torro a fakere] (Srd.) by the various permutations in (39a–e).
it= I.return to it=do.INF
(38) [ModEpistemic/Alethic deber/devoir/dovere/poder/pou-
However, the evidence of a richly articulated clause voir/potere [AspHabitual soler(e) [AspPredispositional tend(e)-
structure composed of a universally fixed order of func- r(e) [AspRepetitive tornar(e)/volver [ModVolition voler(e)/
tional positions specialized in licensing such categories as vouloir/querer [AspTerminative cesar/cesser/smettere
mood, tense, and aspect variously lexicalized by adverbs [AspContinuative(I) continuar(e)/continuer [AspDurative/Pro-
and auxiliaries (cf. §§31.2.2, 31.2.2.1), provides us with a gressive (e)star(e) [ModObligation/Ability deber/devoir/do-
highly natural alternative account of restructuring (Cinque vere/poder/pouvoir/potere [AspFrustrative/Success lograr/

2003; 2004b; 2006). In particular, the content of these verbal réussir/riuscire [ModPermission poder/pouvoir/potere
positions can be lexicalized in two ways: either through [AspConative procurar/provare [Causative fa(i)re/hacer/
movement of a lexical verb raised from the VP (cf. fazer [AspInceptive empezar/commencer/cominciare
§31.2.2.2) or through base generation of an auxiliary dir- [AspAndative an(d)ar(e)/ir [AspContinuative(II) seguir
ectly in the relevant position. The latter case obtains in [AspCompletive finir(e)/terminar/ acabar [VP V . . .
conjunction with those functional predicates that have
traditionally been termed restructuring verbs, which can (39) a. Solia començar a (**començava a soler)
now be simply understood to represent distinct lexicaliza- was.wont begin.INF to began to be.wont
tions of the different functional positions in the higher and treballar a les sis. (Cat.)
lower adverb spaces above the VP: work.INF at the six
‘He would begin working at six.’
(37) [HAS (Aux) [LAS (Aux) [VP VInfinitival . . . ]]]
b. Il tend à vouloir (**veut tendre
he tends to want.INF wants tend.INF
There is then no restructuring process proper along the
à) toujours parler. (Fr.)
lines of (34); rather, as athematic predicates all so-called
to always speak.INF
restructuring verbs invariably enter into a monoclausal
‘He tends to want to always speak.’
configuration with their associated infinitival complement
(cf. 37), the syntax of which they come to inherit and govern c. Torna començar (**comença a tornar) a
(cf. the Heir-Apparent Principle of Harris and Campbell returns begin.INF begins to return.INF to
1995:193) by virtue of lexicalizing one of the various func- s’ interessar a sa cultura. (Lgd.)
tional positions of the inflectional domain. On this view, the self= interest to its culture
absence vs presence of transparency effects are not licensed ‘(The people) are beginning again to get interested
by particular structural configurations but, rather, are to be in their own culture.’
564
d. Tendem a querer continuar (**querem This approach to restructuring also does away with the
they.tend to want.INF continue.INF they.want traditional stipulations and assumptions that Romance
continuar a tender) a frequentar aquele restructuring predicates form an arbitrary class of verbs
continue.INF to tend.INF to frequent.INF that with special properties (cf. Moore 1994; Roberts 1994);
lugar. (Pt.) restructuring falls out as a concomitant of the independ-
place ently motivated theory of a richly articulated clausal struc-
‘They tend to want to continue going to that place.’ ture. It thus follows in a principled manner that the class of
restructuring verbs is exclusively made up of those predi-
e. Cesó de continuar (**continuó cesando
cates whose meanings can be directly mapped onto the
he.stopped of continue.INF continued stopping
modal, temporal, and aspectual positions of the inflectional
de) maldiciendo. (Sp.)
domain of the sentential core, without there being any need
of cursing
to attribute special properties to such verbs.
‘He stopped continually swearing.’
Analogously, we also now have a principled explanation

for the observation (Salvi 2001b:520-21) that only a very
limited class of adverbs may intervene between infinitive 31.3 Higher left periphery
and restructuring verb. More specifically, only those adverbs
which lexicalize functional positions situated in the space The higher left periphery (henceforth simply left periphery)
between the functional position lexicalized by the restruc- is the leftmost part of the sentence where two fundamental
turing verb and the derived position of the infinitive can kinds of information are encoded. On the one hand, it
intervene between the two. Consequently, taking an interfaces with the sentential core and its propositional
example such as (40a), we see that the functional predicate content, determining (or reduplicating) properties such as
vuole ‘wants’ lexicalizes the ModVolitional position whereas finiteness and modal specifications. On the other, it contains
the infinitive ricopiare ‘to write up’ is situated somewhere those elements that substantiate a direct link between the
in the LAS above Voice, as witnessed by its position to the sentence and the discourse. Whether expressed by morpho-
left of the manner adverb bene ‘well’. It follows that any logical or syntactic means, it is generally at the level of the
adverbs generated in positions higher than ModVolitional left periphery that information is encoded which allows us
such as normalmente ‘normally’ (= AspHabitual) must precede, to distinguish a declarative from an interrogative and other
but significantly cannot follow, vuole (40b). By contrast, a clause types. In most Romance languages, moreover, some
lower adverb such as sempre ‘always’ (= AspPerfect) is correctly types of constituent whose position is highly dependent on
predicted to be able to occur between vuole and ricopiare or discourse and information-structure properties (e.g. topics,
follow the latter if the infinitive lexicalizes a position within foci) typically appear within this part of the clause (see
the LAS to the right of AspPerfect (40c). §34.2). The left periphery therefore includes different
types of complementizer (subordinators), and often hosts
(40) a. Gli appunti, Ugo [ModPVol. li vuole topic and focus constituents giving rise to marked word
the notes Ugo them= wants orders. In some varieties it also includes sentence particles
[LAS ricopiare bene [v-VP ricopiare ]]]. (It.) with illocutionary or emphatic values.
recopy.INF well
‘Ugo wants to write up his notes properly.’
b. Gli appunti, Ugo normalmente [ModPVol. li 31.3.1 Complementizers
the notes Ugo usually them=
vuole (**normalmente) [LAS ricopiare
The distinction between finite and non-finite clauses is
wants usually recopy.INF
generally marked on the verb form, but is also encoded on
bene [VP ricopiare ]]]. (It.)
the complementizer in a number of instances (see also
well
§§16.4.3.3, 63.2.1.2). Although there is already evidence of
‘Ugo usually wants to write up his notes properly.’
complementizers in Latin (Vincent 1998a; Salvi 2004;
c. Gli appunti, Ugo [ModPVol.li vuole [LAS Ledgeway 2012a:150-58), it is only with the rise of the
the notes Ugo them= wants Romance languages that a fully-fledged complementizer
(sempre) ricopiare (sempre) bene system develops, contrasting finite complementizers from
always recopy.INF always well Latin QUOD/QUID ‘that’ and QUIA ‘because’, and infinitival com-
[VP ricopiare ]]]. (It.) plementizers derived from the prepositions DE ‘(down) from’
‘Ugo always wants to write up his notes properly.’ and AD ‘to(wards)’:
565
(41) Jean m’ a dit de vous (45) a. Credo che il tuo libro, loro lo
Jean me= has said of you= I.believe that the your book they it=
informer qu’ il viendrait plus tard. (Fr.) apprezzerebbero molto. (It.)
inform.INF that he come.COND more late appreciate.COND much
‘Jean told me to inform you that he would come later.’ ‘I believe that they would appreciate your book a lot.’
b. Credo, il tuo libro, di apprezzarlo molto. (It.)
The distinction between finite and non-finite comple-
I.believe the your book of appreciate.INF=it much
mentizers is widespread, but other distinctions exist: var-
‘I believe I appreciate your book a lot.’
ieties such as Romanian (42) and southern Italian dialects
(43) present dual-complementizer systems which encode c. Sunt sigură că pe Ion l-am
different modal values (for detailed bibliography, see I.am sure that ACC Ion him=I.have
Ledgeway 2012a:169-76). These varieties distinguish văzut de anul trecut. (Ro.)
between an indicative/declarative complementizer and a seen of year=the past
subjunctive/irrealis complementizer:14 ‘I’m sure that I saw Ion last year.’
d. Vreau mâine să meargă la meci. (Ro.)
(42) a. Ioana ştia că va lua examenul. (Ro.)
I.want tomorrow that he.go to match
Ioana knew that will take.INF exam=the
‘I want him to go to the match tomorrow.’
‘Ioana knew she would pass the exam.’
b. Sper să plece mâine la Londra. (Ro.) Similar ordering restrictions have been described for
I.hope that leaves.SBJV tomorrow to London languages that do not exhibit a split system. In these var-
‘I hope she will leave for London tomorrow.’ ieties the complementizers are lexically identical but still
show a different distribution on the basis of their specific
(43) Maria nu sta pinsava ca se putia fare function and according to the clause type in which they
Maria not PROG thought that self= could do.INF appear (Poletto 2000; 2001; Benincà 2001b). Recomplemen-
tardu e ncignau cu cogghie ddo fiuri. (Sal.) tation phenomena involving complementizer doubling
late and started that she.collects two flowers around constituents fronted to the left periphery are
‘Maria didn’t think it could get late, and started to attested in both old (46a) and modern (46b) Romance (cf.
pick flowers.’ §§62.2, 63.2.1.3), and highlight further the need to recognize
two complementizers and associated positions despites
The subjective/irrealis complementizer is generally used their apparent homophony:16
in place of infinitival clauses, especially in subordinate
clauses whose subject is identical to an argument of the (46) a. Je te adjure par le vray Dieu que ta
main clause, and in jussive/optative clauses that are asso- I you= beseech by the true God that your
ciated with the subjunctive mood (at least where this mood fille Tarsienne, que tu ne la donnes a
is morphologically available).15 These complementizers daughter Tarsienne that you not her= give to
exhibit different syntactic behaviours, insofar as they mariage a autre que a moy. (OFr.)
appear in different positions with respect to co-occurring marriage to other than to me
topics and foci (44): topics and foci can follow finite declara- ‘I beseech you before God that you may give your
tive complementizers (45a,c), but can only precede non- daughter in marriage to me alone.’
finite and modal complementizers (45b,d; Rizzi 1997:288;
b. Dixeron que a este home que non
Ledgeway 2012a:170):
they.said that to this man that not
o maltratemos. (Glc.)
(44) [LP Comp1 [Top [Foc [Comp2 [Infl . . . ]]]
him= we.ill.treat
‘They said that we should not treat this man badly.’
16
See Uriagereka (1995a) for Galician; Rodríguez Ramalle (2003), De-
monte and Fernández-Soriano (2005; 2009), Villa-García (2012a; 2012b;
14
In colloquial varieties of Romanian, both complementizers may even forthcoming), González i Planas (2013) for Spanish; Mascarenhas (2007),
co-occur in irrealis clauses (for further discussion, see §8.5.2.4). Ribeiro and Torres Morais (2012) for Portuguese; Paoli (2003a; 2007) for
15
See Ledgeway (2013b) and §63.3 for the distribution of infinitives Ligurian and Turinese; Ledgeway (2004a, 2005), Manzini and Savoia (2005;
according to specific predicates and in comparison with Italo-Greek 2011a), Vincent (2006a), D’Alessandro and Ledgeway (2010a) for central-
dialects. southern Italo-Romance; and Dagnac (2012) for Picard.
566
Although to a lesser extent than Germanic, omission of in many northern Italian dialects and in colloquial French,
the complementizer is also found in Romance under specific where the complementizer co-occurs with the wh-phrase
conditions: it is always optional and is generally limited to not only in embedded interrogatives but also in root wh-
null subject languages and to irrealis subordinate clauses questions (Poletto 2000; Paoli 2003a; Parry 2003). This obser-
(Torrego 1983; Poletto 2001; Brovetto 2002; Giorgi and vation highlights how, although complementizers play an
Pianesi 2004; Cocchi and Poletto 2007; Llinàs-Grau and essential role in encoding the illocutionary force of the
Fernández-Sánchez 2011; Manzini and Savoia 2011a): clause, they are not solely responsible for clause typing.
As subordinate conjunctions, complementizers typically
(47) a. Solicito (que) me seja concedida uma introduce subordinate clauses. However, root clause com-
I.request that me= be.SBJV.3SG granted a plementizers are also very commonly found in Romance, in
bolsa. (Pt.) declarative, exclamative, and interrogative sentences, in
bursary both standard and non-standard varieties. Among the
‘I request a bursary be granted to me.’ Romance languages, Gascon stands out for its peculiar prop-
erty of employing the finite complementizer (so-called
b. Tutti credono (che) sia una spia. (It.)
enunciative que ‘that’) in neutral affirmative root clauses
all believe that be.SBJV.3SG a spy
(Campos 1992; cf. 51 below, and §§46.3.3 and 53.21), while in
‘Everybody thinks he’s a spy.’
other varieties the presence of the finite complementizer is
typically related to a specific function (e.g. quotative,
Independently of the systems described above, a distinct
explicative, jussive, optative, exclamative) or contributes a
complementizer introduces embedded yes/no questions in
special semantico-pragmatic value to the clause (e.g. strong
Romance:
assertion or negation of a previous presupposition) both in
declaratives and interrogatives. Moreover, the finite com-
(48) a. Em va preguntar si volia sortir. (Cat.)
plementizer may follow certain adverbs or (semi‑)grammat-
me= goes ask.INF if I.wanted exit.INF
icalized verbal or adjectival forms in structures that have
‘He asked me if I wanted to go out.’
been analysed as monoclausal:17
b. Me preguntó si había llegado a las tres. (Sp.)
me= he.asked if he.had arrived at the three (50) a. Sigur că va veni. (Ro.)
‘He asked me if he had arrived at three.’ surely that will.3SG come.INF
‘Of course s/he’s coming.’
In almost all Romance languages, this interrogative com-
b Capace che viene anche lui
plementizer is the only element in the left periphery that
possible that comes also he
marks the subordinate clause as an indirect yes/no ques-
alla festa. (central-southern It.)
tion. The main finite complementizer, however, is not
to.the party
always (and not necessarily) ruled out: in some Spanish
‘He may well come to the party too.’
varieties and in colloquial Catalan, it can occur alongside
the interrogative complementizer in the order que + si (49a).
In addition to the modal values of the subordinate clause,
In the same varieties, the finite complementizer can also
the complementizer may encode or reduplicate other fea-
precede the wh-phrase of an embedded wh-interrogative
tures. Although cross-linguistically not so common, some
(49b) (Plann 1982; Brucart 1993; Rivero 1994a; Villalba
languages display complementizer agreement (cf. e.g.
2002; Etxepare 2008; Demonte and Fernández-Soriano
Haegeman 1992 for Flemish). Even though no such phenom-
2009; Rigau and Süils 2010; Dagnac 2012):
ena have been attested in Romance, the que/qui ‘that’ alter-
nation in French relative clauses, which depends on the
(49) a. Em va preguntar que si volia sortir. (Cat.)
me= goes ask.INF that if I.wanted exit.INF
‘He asked me if I wanted to go out.’ 17
See Bonami et al. (2004:149), Grevisse and Goosse (2008:§1121) for
French; Hill (2007; 2011; 2012) for Romanian; Pietrandrea (2005), Giacalone
b. Preguntaste que quiénhabíallegado a las tres. (Sp.) Ramat and Topadze (2007), Giorgi (2010), Cruschina (2015) for Italian. In
you.asked thatwho had arrivedatthethree several Romance varieties, grammaticalization between the element pre-
ceding the complementizer and the complementizer itself seems to be
‘You asked who had arrived at three.’ complete, producing an adverb with an evidential or epistemic value
(Travis 2006; Olbertz 2007; Cruschina and Remberger 2008; Cruschina
2015). See also Martins (2013) and Poletto and Zanuttini (2013) on polarity
This co-occurrence of complementizer and wh-phrase, adverbs/particles followed by an embedded sentence introduced by the
which is not possible in standard Romance, is very common declarative complementizer in emphatic replies.
567
syntactic function of the relative complementizer (object vs b. Si viene mi madre, que el tabaco
subject), has been regarded as agreement in the comple- if comes my mother that the tobacco
mentizer system (Kayne 1976; Rizzi 1990; Taraldsen 2001; es tuyo. (Sp., instructive)
2002; Sportiche 2011). A similar alternation is found in is yours
Vallader, the Ræto-Romance variety spoken in the Enga- ‘If my mother comes, (we must tell her that) the
dine, where cha has the same function as Fr. que, and tobacco is yours.’
alternates with chi, which instead mirrors Fr. qui (Haiman
c. Si li vo’ fa’ ocche li facce. (Arl., optative)
and Benincà 1992; Taraldsen 2001; 2002; see also Parry 2007a
if it= wants do.INF ocche it= do.SBJV.3SG
on similar alternations in early Italo-Romance varieties).
‘If he wants to do it, let him do it.’
d. Ca n’ gi venghe a la casa
31.3.2 Illocutionary force, clause types, and ca not there= I.come to the house
sentence particles te! (Arl., negation of a presupposition)
your
‘Don’t worry, I’ve no intention of coming to your
Complementizers play a fundamental role in encoding place!’
clause type, especially embedded sentences, but other
devices such as specific syntactic configurations may be Similarly, several studies have highlighted the special
decisive in a greater range of contexts, including interroga- functions and values of certain emphatic particles that
tive and exclamative root clauses. In addition, the presence have been linked to illocutionary force, emphatic assertion,
of discourse particles may contribute a specific semantic or focus, or polarity (Jones 1993; Hernanz 2006; 2010; Hernanz
illocutionary value to the sentence (for a full discussion of and Rigau 2006; Hinzelin 2009; Hinzelin and Remberger
illocutionary force, see Ch. 53). 2009; Remberger 2011a; Rigau 2012; Batllori and Hernanz
2013; Poletto and Zanuttini 2013). These particles are com-
mon in Spanish, Catalan, Occitan, and Sardinian, and are
31.3.2.1 Declaratives mostly, though not uniquely, derived from Latin SIC ‘thus’,
Romance neutral root declarative clauses do not generally BENE ‘well’ and IAM ‘already’. They are predominantly found
present any special marking. As already noted, a well- in root clauses, but are also admitted in embedded clauses
known exception is Gascon, where the complementizer that have a fully-fledged left periphery.
appears in affirmative root clauses to mark them as declara-
tive (see 51; Rohlfs 1970; Campos 1992; also §53.2.1),18 while
in other varieties complementizers in root clauses signal a
31.3.2.2 Interrogatives
special function or value of the clause (see 52; Rivero 1994a;
Extepare 2008; 2010; D’Alessandro and Ledgeway 2010a): In virtually all Romance languages, intonation alone
would be sufficient to distinguish between a declarative
(51) Miqueu que pren lo car tot diluns matin and an interrogative sentence. However, a relatively large
Miqueu that takes the bus every Monday morning number of interrogative marking strategies are found
e que torna a casa tot dissabte. (Gsc.) (almost always in addition to a marked prosodic pattern),
and that returns to home every Saturday including inversion phenomena, specific word order
‘Miqueu takes the bus every Monday morning and arrangements, and interrogative particles (cf. also
returns home every Saturday.’ §53.3.3). A complementizer or a complementizer-like
element introduces yes/no questions in central Catalan,
(52) a. Oye, que el Barça ha ganado in central-southern Italian dialects, and in Sardinian
listen that the Barça has won (Hualde 1992; Wheeler et al. 1999; Rigau and Prieto 2005;
la Champions. (Sp., quotative) Prieto and Rigau 2007; Rohlfs 1969a; Garzonio 2004;
the Champions Damonte and Garzonio 2009; Cruschina 2012a; Lusini
‘Hey, Barça won the Champions League.’ 2013), with functions ranging from mere interrogative
marking to the expression of more subtle and additional
semantic values of the question such as a request for a
confirmation on the basis of a strong presupposition,
18
Recent studies have analysed it as an evidential modal marker (Pusch
contrast against expectations, a rhetorical effect, or an
2000; 2003a). element of surprise:
568
(53) a. Ca chini u dìcia? (Cal., rhetorical) (54) a. Unde (**Ion) s-a dus (Ion)? (Ro.)
Q who it= says where Ion self=has led Ion
‘Who says that? ‘Where did Ion go?’
b. O icché tu sta’ facendo? (Flo., surprise/disproval) b. Où est (**Marie) allée Marie? (Fr.)
Q what you stay doing where is Marie gone Marie
‘What are you doing?’ ‘Where did Marie go?’
c. Que vindràs a Barcelona? No em pensava
Considerable variation is found with embedded wh-
Q you.will.come to Barcelona not me= I.thought
questions (Rizzi 1996; Barbosa 2001). In Catalan, Romanian,
pas que ens acompanyessis.
and peninsular Spanish there is no root/embedded asym-
not that us= you.accompanied.SBJV
metry (55a,b): the inflected verb must be strictly adjacent to
(NCCat., contrary to expectations)
the fronted wh-phrase in matrix as well as in embedded
‘Are you coming to Barcelona? I didn’t think you
clauses. In Italian, the adjacency requirement is more
were coming with us.’
relaxed: judgments are still shaky in embedded questions
in the indicative (56a), but grammaticality certainly
The presence of these elements generally imposes syn-
improves in conjunction with the subjunctive (56b; Rizzi
tactic restrictions, especially on the position of the subject.
1996:80). In Portuguese (57a) and French (57b), by contrast,
Sardinian a (< Lat. AUT ‘or’), for example, is incompatible
the subject of embedded questions can either intervene
with a preverbal subject or a fronted constituent (Jones
between the wh-phrase and the inflected verb or appear in
1993; Mensching and Remberger 2010a; Mensching 2008b;
an inversion structure (57):
Remberger 2010). Sets of sentence particles with specialized
functions related to the left periphery have been described
(55) a. No sé qué (**Maria) compró (Maria). (Sp.)
for interrogatives, both yes/no questions and wh-questions,
not I.know what Maria bought Maria
in Florentine (Garzonio 2004) and in Venetan dialects (cf.
‘I don’t know what Maria bought.’
Munaro and Poletto 2003; 2008; Obenauer 2004),19 while the
particle se ‘if ’ introduces embedded wh-questions in some b. Nu ne-a spus unde (**Ion) s-a dus
Catalan and Occitan dialects, preceding the interrogative not us=has told where Ion self=has led
wh-phrase (cf. Rigau and Suïls 2010). (Ion). (Ro.)
In most Romance varieties wh-questions involve fronting Ion
of the wh-phrase from its base position to the left periphery. ‘He didn’t tell us where Ion went.’
In this syntactic configuration, the subject cannot intervene
between the wh-phrase and the inflected verb, insofar as the (56) a. Tutti si domandano che cosa (??il
wh-phrase must stand adjacent to the verb (54).20 This all self= wonder what thing the
interrogative structure has been explained with reference direttore) ha detto (il direttore). (It.)
to the focal and quantificational nature of wh-phrases, and manager has said (the director)
has been analysed as a residue of the V2 syntax of medieval
b. Tutti si domandano che cosa (il
Romance involving verb movement to the vacant comple-
all self= wonder what thing the
mentizer position, namely, to a position right-adjacent to
direttore) abbia detto (il direttore). (It.)
the fronted wh-phrase (e.g. Torrego 1984; Ambar 1992; Rizzi
manager has.SBJV said (the director)
and Roberts 1989; Rizzi 1996; Raposo 1994; Uriagereka
‘Everyone wonders what the manager said.’
1995b):
(57) a. Sabes quando (a Maria) chegou
19
The relation between some of these particles and the left periphery you.know when the Maria arrived
has been the subject of controversy, esp. when they occur in sentence-final (a Maria)? (Pt.)
positions (cf. Cardinaletti 2011). the Maria
20
The rigidity of this constraint depends on the D(iscourse)-linking
nature of the wh-phrase. The adjacency requirement may in fact fail with ‘Do you know when Maria arrived?’
D-linked wh-phrases (Cinque 1990b; Rizzi 1990; 2001a,b; Barbosa 2001;
Zubizarreta 2001), and some types of wh-phrase such as the equivalents of b. Je me demande où (Marie)
why need not stand strictly adjacent to the verb (Rizzi 2001a). At the same I me= wonder where Marie
time, subject inversion obtains in interrogative structures where adjacency est allée (Marie). (Fr.)
is obligatory, especially in non-null subject languages like French where
several types of interrogative inversion exist (see e.g. Kayne 1972; Rizzi and is gone Marie
Roberts 1989; Jones 1996). ‘I wonder where Marie went.’
569
In most Romance languages, the absence of wh- individual languages. Despite this complexity, we observe
movement is also an option, but it is interpreted as an that many of the syntactic strategies used to mark inter-
echo question. However, in French and in Portuguese in rogative sentences are also employed for exclamatives,
situ wh-questions are simply syntactic variants of ordinary most of which involve the left periphery of the sentence.
wh-questions, especially in the colloquial language (see These include intonation, root complementizers, fronted
Ambar et al. 2001; Kato and Mioto 2005; Kato 2013): wh-phrases, sentence particles, and marked word orders
(Radford 1982; Vinet 1991; Benincà 1996; Gutiérrez-Rexach
(58) a. Tu vas où? (Fr.) 2001; Hernanz 2001; Ambar 2002; Villalba 2003; Castroviejo
you go where 2006; 2008; 2010; Munaro 2006; 2010; Demonte and
‘Where are you going?’ Fernández-Soriano 2009; Ledgeway 2010b). A crucial differ-
ence between exclamative and interrogative sentences,
b. O João viu quem? (Pt.)
however, concerns the position of wh-phrases: while
the John saw who
wh- in situ is (optionally) possible in the wh-questions of
‘Who did John see?’
some Romance languages (61), it is never possible in root
wh-exclamatives (62):
In some northeastern Italian dialects, in addition to wh- in
situ, we also find wh-doubling, namely, the occurrence of a
(61) a. Que livro comprou o João? (Pt.)
wh-phrase in situ together with a (morphologically differ-
what book bought the João
ent) fronted counterpart (Munaro 1999; Pollock, Munaro
and Poletto 2001; Poletto and Pollock 2004a; 2004b; 2009; b. O João comprou que livro? (Pt.)
Manzini and Savoia 2011b). the João bought what book
‘Which book did João buy?’
(59) a. S’ a-lo fat che? (Ils. VR)
what has=he done what? (62) a. Que (belo) livro (que) o João comprou! (Pt.)
‘What did he do?’ what nice bought that the João bought
b. Ndo e-lo ndat endoe? (Ils. VR) b. **O João comprou que (belo) livro! (Pt.)
where is=he gone where the João bought what nice book
‘Where has he gone?’ ‘What a nice book João bought!’
Among those Romance languages that require wh-

movement in ordinary wh-questions, Romanian is the only
one to allow multiple wh-fronting (Dobrovie-Sorin 1990;
31.3.2.4 Imperatives
1994; Comorovski 1996; Alboiu 2002; Cornilescu 2004): Imperative sentences do not face the same problems of
analysis as exclamatives. For example, true imperatives
(60) a. Cine ce a scris? (Ro.) and suppletive imperatives are clearly different morpho-
who what has written syntactically (see further Ch. 53, and Rivero 1994b; Rivero
‘Who wrote what?’ and Terzi 1995; Zanuttini 1997), but it is universally
accepted that they express a unique semantic and prag-
b. Pe care cine l-a văzut? (Ro.)
matic type. Syntactically, in particular, the left periphery
ACC which who him=has seen
is involved in the encoding of the imperative clause type in
‘Who saw which one?’
a number of ways. True imperatives in the majority of
Romance languages (63a, 64a), and positive suppletive
imperatives (65a) with a subjunctive form in some varieties
31.3.2.3 Exclamatives (e.g. Spanish and Catalan), are characterized by enclisis of
The availability of diverse structural configurations that can object clitic pronouns and have been analysed as resulting
be associated with the expression of exclamative force, from verb movement to the vacant complementizer pos-
coupled with the frequent difficulty of isolating the syntac- ition (Rivero 1994b; Rivero and Terzi 1995; Graffi 1996;
tic and semantic properties that separate exclamatives from Zanuttini 1997). In addition, in suppletive imperatives con-
other clause types, make it difficult to provide valid gener- structed with third person subjects and the subjunctive
alizations or a uniform characterization of exclamatives (also known as exhortatives, jussives, or non-deictic
from a syntactic point of view. This problem holds not imperatives), the verb is preceded by the complementizer,
only for Romance as a language family but also within the subject is postponed, and clitics are preposed (63b, 64b,
570
65b; cf. Hualde 1992; Rivero 1994b; Rivero and Terzi 1995; c. Mi trasi! (NESic.)
Zanuttini 1997; Poletto 2000).21 In Spanish the subject of this that enter.3SG
construction (65b) can be interpreted as a second person ‘Come in!’
(viz. a deictic imperative) when que ‘that’ has a quotative
function: Finally, sentence particles may also be found in impera-
tive clauses. An example is ma in Badiotto, a Raeto-Romance
(63) a. Fallo entrare! (It.) variety:
make.IMP.2SG=him enter.INF
‘Have him shown in!’ (67) Màngel ma che spo crësceste! (Bad.)
eat.IMP.2SG=it ma that then grow
b. (Che) lo facciano entrare! (It.)
‘Eat it and you’ll grow!’
that him= make.SBJV.3PL enter.INF
‘Let them show him in!’
Among the particles used in imperatives in these var-
ieties, some are unique to clauses with imperatival illocut-
(64) a. Canteu-la vosaltres ara! (Cat.)
ionary force, while others are also employed in other clause
sing.IMP.2PL=it you.PL now
types (Poletto and Zanuttini 2003; 2010).
‘You sing it now!’
b. Que la cantin els nois! (Cat.)
that it= sing.SBJV.3PL the boys 31.3.3 Verb Second in old and modern
‘Let the boys sing it!’ Romance
(65) a. ¡Entréguenme los ensayos ahora mismo! (Sp.)
hand.in.SBJV.3PL=to-me the essays now same The label Verb Second (V2) describes the transitional phase
‘Hand in your essays to me right now!’ between the predominant SOV order of Classical Latin and
the SVO order of modern Romance (see §62.5), and is par-
b. ¡Que me entreguen los ensayos ahora ticularly well attested in medieval Gallo-Romance, northern
that me= hand.in.SBJV.3PL the essays now Italian, and Raeto-Romance varieties (see Price 1971; Vanelli
mismo! (Sp.) 1986; 1999; Adams 1987a; Roberts 1993; Benincà 1995; 2006;
same Vance 1997; Salvi 2000; 2001c; 2004; 2011; Ferraresi and
‘They must hand in their essays to me right now!’ Goldbach 2002; Kaiser 2002; 2002-03; Ledgeway 2007a;
2008a; 2012a; Poletto 2014). The situation is more controver-
As can be seen, the presence of the complementizer is sial for old Ibero-Romance languages, with scholars contrast-
obligatory in most varieties (64b, 65b), but it is optional in ing two opposite views: on the one hand, those who claim
others such as Italian (63a). Some Raeto-Romance varieties that old Spanish and old Portuguese have a V2 syntax
(e.g. Vallader and Friulian), on the other hand, seem to (Fontana 1993; 1997; Ribeiro 1995; Cho 1997; Danford 2002;
always exhibit an overt complementizer in imperatives Fernández-Ordóñez 2009) and, on the other, those advocat-
irrespective of the type (Zanuttini 1997:144; Poletto ing that old Ibero-Romance does not exhibit a V2 word order
2000:134). It should also be noted that those varieties dis- (Wanner 1989; Kaiser 1999; Bossong 2006; Martins 2002; Fiéis
playing a dual complementizer system (§31.3.1) employ the 2003; Eide 2006; Sitaridou 2006; 2011; Rinke 2007; 2009).22
subjunctive/irrealis complementizer in the contexts of non- During the V2 stage, the left periphery becomes crucial in
deictic (third person) and suppletive imperatives (Rohlfs two ways. First, the finite verb is assumed to occupy a
1968:§610; Zanuttini 1997; Ledgeway 1998; Damonte 2005): higher position than it does in root clauses in modern
Romance (usually taken to raise to the vacant complement-
(66) a. Să plece imediat! (Ro.) izer position), and second, one or more constituents char-
that leave.SBJV.3G immediately acterized by a special pragmatic interpretation (topic or
‘He must leave immediately!’ focus) can be fronted to a preverbal position (68a). During
b. Cu ffazza cce bbòle! (Sal.) this same V2 stage the use of an expletive particle si/sì
that do.SBJV.3SG what wants deriving from Latin SIC ‘thus, so’ is also frequently attested
‘Let him do whatever he wants!’ in the left periphery of mainly root clauses (68b).
21 22
Negation affects verb placement and hence the position of the clitics V2 is not the most common word order in early Sardinian, which
(Rivero 1994b; Rivero and Terzi 1995; Zanuttini 1997). shows a VSO order (Lombardi 2007b).
571
(68) a. sì fuorti cuolpi li donava (ONap.) In addition to these language-specific legacies, other
such strong blows to.him= he.gave more general syntactic configurations have been viewed
‘he gave him such strong blows’ as residues of medieval Romance V2. In wh-questions, the
fronting of the wh-phrases in modern Romance seems to
b. Spissi cuolpi mortali sì le dava (ONap.)
occur at the same time as verb raising, resulting in strict
frequent blows mortal sì to.him= he.gave
adjacency between the two elements (Rizzi 1996). Verb
‘He struck him with many deadly blows’
raising to the complementizer position has also been advo-
cated as the key explanation for the different word orders
Reflexes of SIC have received different analyses in the
and ordering restrictions that characterize certain conces-
literature, and the functions that have been attributed to
sive and conditional clauses in a number of Romance var-
it go from marker of topic continuity, expletive focus, to the
ieties (Rizzi 1982; Munaro 2010).
lexicalization of the complementizer position that satisfies
the V2 constraint as an alternative to verb movement
(Fleischman 1991; van Reenen and Schøsler 1993; 2000; 31.3.4 Topic and focus in the left periphery
Benincà 1995; Ribeiro 1995; Vance 1995; Poletto 2005; Be-
nincà 2006; Ledgeway 2008a).
The relatively free word order that characterizes Romance
Enclisis to the finite verb, especially, though not exclu-
languages has found a sound explanation in the recognition
sively, when it occurs in sentence-initial position (Benincà
of information structure and discourse properties as the key
1995; Fischer 2002), is a further significant property associ-
factors responsible for word order variation. All major con-
ated with V2 in medieval Romance. V2 syntax and enclisis
stituents are apparently able to appear within the sentence
have survived in some modern Romance varieties, though
in positions other than those typically recognized as
apparently independently from one another: V2 has been
unmarked. However, this syntactic flexibility is not free
preserved in some Romansh dialects (69), almost certainly
but, rather, subject to pragmatic conditions according to
under the influence of German contact (Haiman 1988; Hai-
whether the information provided is topical or focal. This
man and Benincà 1992), while enclisis survives in western
view has also been extended to Latin, on the basis that
peninsular Ibero-Romance (70) (for its distribution and
pragmatic motivation lies largely behind the free order of
restrictions, see Campos 1989; Martins 1994; 2005a;
the constituents in the clause (Salvi 2004; Devine and
Uriagereka 1995a; Barbosa 1996; 2000; Raposo and
Stephens 2006; Ledgeway 2012a:ch. 5). The pragmatic nature
Uriagereka 1996; 2005; Raposo 2000; González i Planas
of the fronted constituents in medieval Romance has also
2007; Viejo Fernández 2008; Fernández-Rubiera 2009):23
been a central issue in the studies and accounts of V2
syntax. It is generally acknowledged that, from a pragmatic
(69) a. Ed aschia fa el il patg cul nausch. (Srs.)
viewpoint, the fronted elements corresponded to discourse-
and so makes he the pact with.the devil
related notions such as those of topic and focus. Topic and
‘And so, he makes the pact with the devil.’
focus are in fact the pragmatically salient elements that
b. Eir in Grischun vains nus industrias chi . . . (Put.) determine marked word orders by occurring in designated
even in Grisons have we industries that structural positions within the clause. In medieval Romance
‘Even in Grisons, we have industries that . . . ’ the precise characterization of a fronted constituent is not
always unambiguous, and may sometimes remain open to
(70) a. (Eu) vi-a ontem. (Pt.) two or more interpretations. Clearly distinct properties
I saw=her yesterday differentiate topics and foci in modern Romance, both syn-
‘I saw her yesterday.’ tactically and prosodically (Rizzi 1997; Zubizarreta 1998;
Frascarelli 2000; Frota 2000; Benincà 2001b; D’Imperio
b. Les pataques, téoles tayaes. (Ast.)
2002; Bocci 2013). The syntactic differences include first of
the potatoes I.have=them cut
all the presence of a resumptive clitic attached to the verb
‘I have cut the potatoes.’
under topicalization, provided such a clitic is available in
c. Dixonos que queria ir. (Glc.) the language, a property incompatible with focalization.
he.told=us that he.wanted go.INF The syntactic construction is hence known as ‘clitic left
‘He told us he wanted to go.’ dislocation’ (Cinque 1977; 1990b), which is very common
in all Romance languages and is not unknown in (later)
Latin (see Salvi 2004). The dislocated constituent is gener-
23
Enclisis on finite verbs is also found in some northern Italian dialects ally an argument of the verb that is syntactically separated
such Borgomanerese (Tortora 2002; 2014a). from the rest of the clause by displacement from its
572
canonical position to a preverbal, clause-external position Foci also appeared within the left periphery of the sen-
(or, under the appropriate pragmatic conditions, to a post- tence in medieval Romance (cf. 6b,c), in compliance with the
verbal position under so-called clitic right dislocation; cf. requirements imposed by a V2 syntax, or independently
§§34.4.1-2):24 according to those that deny the existence of V2 in certain
medieval Romance varieties. A switch towards the realiza-
(71) a. Sus la plaja, i passe tion of the focus constituent in clause-internal postverbal
on the beach there= I.spend position has since affected Romance (cf. discussion of the
pas jamai lei vacanças. (Prv.) lower left periphery in §31.2.1). This tendency is stronger in
not ever the holidays French and in some northern Italian dialects like Turinese,
‘I never spend my holidays on the beach.’ where the focus constituent is always realized in a clause-
internal position, in the shape of postverbal focalization or
b. La Maria, al Pere, del llibre,
cleft sentences (Belletti 2005c; Paoli 2003a). Wh-phrases are
la Maria to.the Peter of.the book
an evident exception, representing the focal category most
li’n va parlar. (Cat.)
resilient to this trend, although even wh-phrases are often
to.him=of.it= goes talk.INF
realized in situ in colloquial French and European Portu-
‘Maria talked to Pere about the book.’
guese (cf. 58a,b).
In addition to wh- and quantifier-phrases, other focal
Another important difference between topics and foci
constituents may still be fronted in other Romance var-
in Romance concerns a uniqueness restriction which limits
ieties, but are limited to specific kinds of focus or particular
the number of foci to one per sentence, whereas topics
interpretations. One category that has been attributed focal
may have multiple realizations. A consequence of this
properties is quantifiers and quantified phrases (72a), which
restriction involves wh-phrases: topics are compatible with
are also commonly fronted in Romance (Benincà 1988:141f.;
wh-phrases, whereas foci are not, presumably because wh-
Vallduví 1992a; Raposo 1994; Raposo and Uriagereka 1996;
phrases correspond to the focus of the interrogative sen-
Zubizarreta 1998:102f.; Alboiu 2002; Quer 2002; Benincà and
tence. As for the position in which they occur, we can
Poletto 2004; Cornilescu 2002; 2004; Cruschina 2012a). As for
further observe that while topics exhibit a more homoge-
other categories, the focus may be realized in the left
neous behaviour across Romance, focalization is subject to a
periphery when the focal constituent is characterized by a
greater degree of variation, especially if a diachronic per-
contrastive interpretation (72b), a situation which appears
spective is taken into consideration. Topics tend to occur at
to hold of most Romance languages.27 The robustness of this
the beginning of the sentence, in a preverbal position, even
evidence has been used as the empirical basis for the claim
in those Romance languages like French with a more rigid
(e.g. López 2009) that focus fronting in Romance is to be
syntactic structure. Other constituents, including an
exclusively related to contrast. Contrastive focus fronting is
additional topic, may precede or follow, but a focus or a
also possible in Brazilian Portuguese (Mioto 2003), while
wh-phrase would normally occur after the topic(s).25
there is no agreement on its availability in European Por-
According to some analyses, all preverbal subjects in null
tuguese, apparently as a consequence of variation across
subject languages are left-dislocated to the left periphery of
speakers (Duarte 1987; 1997; Ambar 1992; 1999; Martins
the sentence (Contreras 1991; Barbosa 1995; 2001; Alexiadou
1994; Barbosa 1995; Costa 1998; Costa and Martins 2011).
and Anagnostopoulou 1998; Solà 1992).26
On the other hand, in European Portuguese fronting obtains
in evaluative or affective structures (72c), also termed syn-
24
Other types of topic or topicalization are possible in Romance such as tactically marked focus in Raposo (1994; 1995; 2000),
hanging topics and left dislocation (Villalba 2000; Benincà 2001b; Benincà although the relation between these structures and focal-
and Poletto 2004b); see Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007) for more subtle
distinctions. ization is not uncontroversial (Costa 1988; Ambar 1999;
25
According to Rizzi (1997), a topic can follow a fronted focus in Italian, Costa and Martins 2011). Recent studies have also high-
but these judgements are not shared by all native speakers (see Frascarelli lighted how in those languages admitting focus-fronting
2000; Benincà 2001b; Benincà and Poletto 2004b). A similar lack of consen-
sus characterizes Catalan, where adjacency to the verb is considered a strict with constituents other than wh- and quantifier phrases,
requirement in focus fronting structures by many Catalan speakers (see e.g. this focalization strategy is not exclusively limited to the
Quer 2002a:254, n.3), although examples of the focus-topic order are given contrastive interpretation. In this respect, the less restrict-
in Vallduví (1992b; 1992c; 1995). In contrast, the adjacency requirement is
well established in the literature on focus fronting in Romanian (Alboiu ive Romance varieties appear to be Sicilian (72d) and
2002; 2004; Cornilescu 2004) and in Spanish (Hernanz and Brucart 1987;
Zubizarreta 1998; 1999; Zagona 2002).
26 27
For an opposing view, see Belletti (1990), Cardinaletti (1997; 2004), Cf. Benincà (2001a), Rizzi (1997), Frascarelli (2000), Belletti (2004b) for
Costa and Duarte (2002), Costa (2004), Gutiérrez-Bravo (2007), Sheehan Italian; Zubizarreta (1998; 1999), Zagona (2002) for Spanish; Motapanyane
(2006), and López (2009). (1998), Alboiu (2002) for Romanian; and Quer (2002a) for Catalan.
573
Sardinian (72e), where the focus of a sentence is typically d. Sissi, cuntenti sugnu! (Sic.)
realized preverbally, irrespective of its specific interpretation yes glad I.am
(Jones 1993, forthcoming; Cruschina 2006; 2010a; 2012a; ‘Yes, I am glad!’
Bentley 2007; 2008b; Mensching and Remberger 2010a):
e. A domo mea venis. (Srd.)
(72) a. Nimic nu ştie Petre. (Ro.) to house my you.come
nothing not knows Petre ‘You come to my house.’
‘Petre doesn’t know anything.’
With respect to these and other varieties, recent studies
b. IL TUO LIBRO ho letto (, non il suo). (It.)
have demonstrated that pragmatic values other than con-
the your book I.have read (, not the his)
trast can trigger focus fronting, such as surprise or mirativ-
‘I read YOUR BOOK, not his’
ity, or emphasis on the propositional truth, viz. verum focus
c. Muito vinho o João bebeu! (Pt.) (cf. Brunetti 2004; 2009a; 2009b; Cruschina 2006; 2012a;
much wine the João drank Leonetti and Escadell Vidall 2009; 2010; Mensching and
‘João drank a lot of wine!’ Remberger 2010a; Paoli 2010; Jones forthcoming).
574

The Structure of The Clause

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Structure of The Clause

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/5/2016, SPi

The structure of the clause

(2) a. Cicciu mancu fumava. (Cal.) 31.2 Sentential core

The sentential core, however, extends beyond the lexical

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

(13) a. Chi rispose al telefono? — Rispose Carlo

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

To these observations, we can add that adverbs occur

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

Table 31.1 Typology of Romance verb placement

b. Speru cu [HAS u sape [LAS già c. [I commenti non si riescono/**riesce a

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

highly natural alternative account of restructuring (Cinque vere/poder/pouvoir/potere [AspFrustrative/Success lograr/

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

Analogously, we also now have a principled explanation

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

Among those Romance languages that require wh-

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE

SILVIO CRUSCHINA AND ADAM LEDGEWAY

Potrebbero piacerti anche